Upload
destiny-brennan
View
222
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
IBHE Presentation 1
Proposed Higher EducationPerformance Funding Model
Performance Funding Steering Committee Meeting
November 30, 2011
Dr. Alan Phillips
Objective
• To propose a performance funding model for public universities that is…
– Linked directly to the Goals of the Illinois Public Agenda and the principles of Public Act 97-320
– Equipped to recognize and account for each university’s mission and set of circumstances
– Adjustable to account for changes in policy and priorities
– Not prescriptive in how to achieve excellence and success
2IBHE Presentation
What We Have Accomplished
• Identified the key issues• Developed performance funding principles• Identified appropriate performance measures and sub-
categories• Developed performance funding models for both 2-year and
4-year colleges and universities.• Acquired initial data• Received input from steering committee members, colleges
and universities, other groups, and individuals
IBHE Presentation 3
This is a dynamic process. We will continually work to improve and refine the model.
Steering Committee Input
• Incorporated recommendations where possible.• Some recommendations are still under consideration.
– Some will take more time to implement– Necessary data may not currently exist
• Some recommendations are beyond the scope of IBHE and Steering Committee responsibilities.– Some recommendations will have to be implemented by colleges
and universities.– Some recommendations may require legislation.
IBHE Presentation 4
Carnegie Classifications• Research – Very High
– University of Illinois – Urbana/Champaign– University of Illinois – Chicago
• Research – High– Northern Illinois University– Southern Illinois University – Carbondale
• Doctoral/Research– Illinois State University
• Masters Colleges & Universities – Large– Southern Illinois University – Edwardsville– Western Illinois University– Eastern Illinois University– Northeastern Illinois University– Chicago State University– Governors State University– University of Illinois – Springfield
• Community Colleges
IBHE Presentation 5
Performance Funding Model
Community Colleges
IBHE Presentation 6
IBHE Presentation 7
Performance Funding Measures(Community Colleges)
• Degree and Certificate Completion.
• Degree and Certificate Completion of “At Risk” students.
• Transfer to a four year institution.
• Remedial and Adult Education Advancement.
• Momentum Points.
• Transfer to a community college.
Performance Funding Model (Community College Example)
Metric 1 – Degree Production of At-Risk students • Data Source – ICCB Annual Enrollment and Completion (A1)
IBHE Presentation 8
College 1College 2College 3College 4…College 39
2008 Degrees and Certificates 2009 Degrees and Certificates
PellRecipient
RemedialHours Total
PellRecipient
RemedialHours Total
%Change
GreaterthanZero Allocation
2722,510
355386
25111,897
15295
86133
883,064
2872,805
441519
33914,961
3002,878
393420
25011,248
32272
8599
802,977
3323,150
478519
33014,225
15.7%12.3%
8.4%0.0%
-2.7%
.157
.123
.084
10,473
• Allocation: $200,000
$10,473
$19,096
$2,994$2,349$1,602
--
--$200,000
IBHE Presentation 9
Performance Funding Model
4-Year Colleges and Universities
Performance Funding Model Criteria(4-Year College or University)
• Measures have to address the performance of a college or university in a holistic manner with primary emphasis on completions. They will be weighted based on each institution’s unique mission, environment, challenges, and ability to meet the State’s Public Agenda goals and objectives.
• Sub-Categories will address the advancement of students who are first-generation, low-income, traditionally underrepresented, or are in critical programs such as STEM or Health Care. They will be weighted based on State goals and objectives.
• Data has to be readily available for all colleges and universities, from widely recognized sources, and must be data that can be verified or validated.
• The data will be normalized (scaled) to ensure that it is comparable across the variables.
• All measures and results are counts, rather than rates.
IBHE Presentation 10
Performance Funding Model Steps(4-Year College or University)
• Step 1 – Identify the performance measures or metrics that support the achievement of the state goals.
• Step 2 – Collect the data on the selected performance measures• Step 3 – Award an additional premium (i.e. 40%) for the production of
certain desired outcomes such as completions by underserved or underrepresented populations
• Step 4 – Normalize (scale) the data, if necessary, so it is comparable across variables.
• Step 5 – Weight each of the Performance Measures that reflects the priority of the Measure and the mission of the institution.
• Step 6 – Multiply and sum the Scaled Data times the Weight to produce the Weighted results.
• Step 7 – Use the Weighted results (or Total Performance Value) to distribute performance funding.
IBHE Presentation 11
Performance Funding Model
• Step 1 – Identify the performance measures or metrics that support the achievement of the state goals.
IBHE Presentation 12
Measure Source• Bachelors Degrees (3-Yr Ave 07-09) IPEDS• Masters Degrees (3-Yr Ave 07-09)IPEDS• Doctoral and Professional Degrees (3-Yr Ave 07-09)IPEDS• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (3-Yr Ave 07-09) IPEDS• Graduate Degrees per 100 FTE (3-Yr Avg 07-09) (?) IPEDS• Cost per FTE (FY11) (?) RAMP• Education and General Spending per Completion (FY11) RAMP• Research and Public Expenditures (FY11) RAMP
IBHE Presentation 13
Performance Funding Model
• Step 1 – Identify the performance measures or metrics that support the achievement of the state goals.Future Measures*• Retention (By Cohort)• Time to Completion (within 100% or 150%)• Students Accumulation of Credit Hours (24/48/72)• Student Transfers• Remediation• Quality
* The data for these measures is either not currently available or is not of sufficient quality to use.
Performance Funding Model
• Step 2 – Collect the data on the selected performance measures
IBHE Presentation 14
Measure University 1 University 2 University 3• Bachelors Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09) 3,329 3,921 1,494• Masters Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09) 1,786 1,552 568• Doctoral and Professional Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09) 862 209 0• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (3-Yr Avg 07-09) 22.2 23.2 22.0• Graduate Degrees per 100 FTE (3-Yr Avg 07-09) (?) 37.6 44.8 39.1• Cost per FTE (FY11) (?) 18,667 10,577 8,908• Education and General Spending per Completion (FY11) 8,858 3,756 3,743• Research and Public Expenditures (FY11) 42,980,300 5,526,700 1,333,900
Performance Funding Model
• Step 3 – Award an additional premium (i.e. 40%) for the production of certain desired outcomes such as completions by underserved or underrepresented populations
IBHE Presentation 15
Sub-Category Weight
• Low Income (Pell/Map Eligible) 20%• Adult (Age 25 and Older) 20%• Hispanic 40%• Black, non-Hispanic 40%• STEM & Health Care (by CIP Code) 40%
IBHE Presentation 16
Future Sub-Categories*• Part-Time• First-Time• Disabled• Veterans• First Generation• English Language Learners• Residents of Underserved Counties• Additional Ethnic Categories
* The data for these measures is either not currently available or is not of sufficient quality to use.
Performance Funding Model
• Step 3 – Award an additional premium (i.e. 40%) for the production of certain desired outcomes such as completions by underserved or underrepresented populations
Performance Funding Model• Step 4 – Normalize (Scale) the data, if necessary, so it is comparable across variables.
– Average the measures across all of the institutions– The average number of Bachelors degree will serve as the base value.– Determine a scaling factor that will normalize the rest of the averages to the average number of Bachelors degrees– Multiply all of the initial data by the scaling factor to normalize the data.
IBHE Presentation 17
Measure Universities 1-12 (Avg) Scaling Factor• Bachelors Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09) 4,445 1.00• Masters Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09) 1,152 3.86• Doctoral and Professional Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09) 796 16.25• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (3-Yr Avg 07-09) 26 173.64• Graduate Degrees per 100 FTE (3-Yr Avg 07-09) (?) 41 109.74• Cost per FTE (FY11) (?) 11,760 .38• Education and General Spending per Completion (FY11) 4,639 .96• Research and Public Expenditures (FY11) 10,803,117 .0004115
Performance Funding Model
• Step 5 – Weight each of the Performance Measures that reflects the priority of the Measure and the mission of the institution.
IBHE Presentation 18
Measure• Bachelors Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09)• Masters Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09)• Doctoral and Professional Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09)• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (3-Yr Avg 07-09)• Graduate Degrees per 100 FTE (3-Yr Avg 07-09) (?)• Cost per FTE (FY11) (?)• Education and General Spending per Completion (FY11)• Research and Public Expenditures (FY11)
University 1 University 2 University 320.0%20.0%17.5%
5.0%7.5%2.5%2.5%
25.0%100.0%
30.0%25.0%
7.5%5.0%7.5%5.0%5.0%
15.0%100.0%
40.0%22.5%
0.0%10.0%10,0%
7.5%7.5%2.5%
100.0%
Performance Funding Model
• Step 6 – Multiply and Sum the Scaled Data times the Weight to produce the Weighted results.
IBHE Presentation 19
Measure• Bachelors Degrees • Masters Degrees• Doctoral and Professional Degrees• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE• Graduate Degrees per 100 FTE (?)• Cost per FTE (?)• Education and General Spending per Completion• Research and Public Expenditures (FY11)
3,9211,552
209 23.244.8
10,5773,756
5,526,700
6,0671,786
862 22.237.6
18,6678,858
42,980,300
Data Data + Premium Scale1.003.86
16.25173.64109.74
.38
.96.0004115
(Data+Premium)x Scale64416769371540344915
-3998-35992274
xWeight =
30.0%25.0%
7.5%5.0%7.5%5.0%5.0%
15.0%
Total PerformanceValue19321692
279202369
-200-180341
4435
Performance Funding Model
• Step 7 – Use the Weighted results (or Total Performance Value) to distribute performance funding.
IBHE Presentation 20
Percentages for Distribution
Total Performance Value 10,840 4,435 2,027 17,302Percentage of Total 62.7% 25.6% 11.7% 100%
Distribution: Pro Rata $627,000 $256,000 $117,000 $1,000,000
University 1 University 2 University 3 Total
Performance Funding Model
• All steps are identical at each university• Accounts for each institution’s unique mission by
adding a weight to each measure• Each institution’s formula calculation is independent• Funding allocation is competitive• Distribution of performance funding is on a pro-rata
share of each institution’s formula calculation• Performance funding appropriations will have to be
earned anew each year
IBHE Presentation 21
Performance Funding Model
• Linked to Goals of the Illinois Public Agenda and the principles of Public Act 97-320
• Equipped to recognize and account for each university’s mission and set of circumstances
• Adjustable to account for changes in policy and priorities
• Not prescriptive in how to achieve excellence and success (what, not how).
22IBHE Presentation
Way Ahead• Finalize adjustment of the model to account for variables unique to each college
and university.
• Present proposed performance funding model to the IBHE Board on December 6th.
• Meet with College and University Presidents to finalize input on the weights and measures.
• Present final performance funding recommendation to the Performance Funding Steering Committee
• Present final performance funding model recommendation to the IBHE Board February 7th along with the higher education budget submission (will include performance funding recommendation).
• Continue work to refine the performance funding model and acquire more accurate and comprehensive data in preparation for the FY 2014 budget submission and performance funding recommendation.
IBHE Presentation 23
This is a dynamic process. We will continually work to improve and refine the model.
Questions/Comments?Questions/Comments?
IBHE Presentation 24